JPA.CA
I've long thought this is one of John Wayne's most suspenseful and overall entertaining films. The story is so well acted and believable that you're actually there. It's easy to see why he is so legendary - he had an on-screen/off-screen presence and ability like few others.Claire Trevor is also very dynamic here. She's funny, witty, has impeccable timing and is perfectly cast. She brings incredible energy and top-tier talent.How often can you say you enjoyed every minute of a movie? Far and away, this is a perfect example. Its all around terrific, underrated, and the epitome of a memorable, enjoyable film. I only wish it were longer and available in HD! Warner Brothers - can you deliver for a loyal fan?Enjoy!
classicsoncall
Well this is a new one on me, I didn't think John Wayne fought any battles prior to the Civil War. Played almost along the lines of a typical B Western, the film's story line and production values are a slight notch above, with Claire Trevor joining Wayne in another film released the same year as "Stagecoach" in which they both appeared. Trevor's character here is not much more than a caricature, as she's constantly grumbling over her status as a woman who's not allowed to take part in the rough and tumble world the men around her find themselves in. Thinking about it now, she was the only woman in the entire picture; how realistic was that? It struck me while watching that this was one film that probably would have benefited from the color treatment, what with all those Redcoats around causing dismay for the Allegheny settlers. Wayne's character Jim Smith and company rebel against the British for allowing trade to continue with marauding Indians, but except for one brief skirmish, the Indians aren't much of a factor in the story. It's those thieving, conniving traders in league with the Brits.If nothing else, the film forced me to search my brain to recall bits and pieces I learned in parochial school about the French and Indian War and the new 'American' spirit of freedom and independence. With the story taking place a decade and a half prior to the Revolutionary War, it's a somewhat different kind of Western taking place East of the Mississippi with the good guys trading their white hats for coonskin caps.
dbdumonteil
I have not seen the colorized version but it does not matter for the characters themselves are very colorful;particularly George Sanders as the "aristocratic" straight-faced phoney military man who treats the +Yankees as if they were ripe for exploitation;particularly Claire +Trevor who teamed up with Wayne in "stagecoach" and later would in ,notably ,"the high and the mighty" ,as the tomboy who wants to fight with the men who were still very macho in those troubled times. The story is routine ,and although it takes place in North America ,has a Robin Hood side ,but the actors make it a winner . The first scene when the men are asked to take off their hat is almost comedy.
Gallus
I watched this film because, after seeing THE PATRIOT (2000), I wanted to see an another perspective on the American Revolution.
The contrast is refreshing. Whereas Mel Gibson and his bunch of cut-throats often sound and act as if they had come straight out of THE TURNER DIARIES, John Wayne and his own band of irregulars live according to the principles of another gospel - that of law and order, western style. The film is indeed a western, in spite of the geographical and historical settings - the mountains of Western Pennsylvania, 15 years before the Boston Tea Party. More specifically, it is a glorified version of the typical B-movie western of the era, which often starred John Wayne, was often shot in exactly the same locations, and always featured the same formulaic story-line and motley collection of stock characters, such as the soft-spoken community leader, the wild mountaineer who talks and acts so funny, the tomboy love interest, who would like so much to be treated like a guy, but cannot, because she is *only* a girl, etc. The main difference, of course, is one of scale and production value : this is not a cheaply mid-length program filler, but a full-blown feature film in which enough talent and production value has been invested to sustain interest from the beginning to the end, even some 60 years later - and this in spite of a few dated scenes and some awkward moments of political incorrectedness (e.g. the questionable philosophical adage Çthe only friendly Indian is a dead IndianÈ is quoted approvingly).The film, as suggested above, is based on the central classical theme of the western genre : the implementation of law and order on a wild and untamed country. In this case, however, the familiar story is told with a novel twist. The author of the screenplay has remembered that American law is, in fact, English law, but adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the new country. The pre-Revolutionary setting has provided him with an opportunity to oppose the two understandings of the same legal tradition - the new, American, understanding of English law represented by James Smith (John Wayne), a nation-builder and a free spirit who does not always play by the rules, but abides by the spirit of the law in his attempts to curb illegal liquor and arms trading with Indians, and the old, British, view, as represented by Captain Swanson (George Sanders) an upright, but unimaginative and incredibly obtuse military officer of a far-away Crown who does not seem to know of any other way to apply the law, but to the letter, regardless of common sense and consequences. In his own words : ÇI am a soldier, sir. They could have been carrying the murder of my own father if they had a permit for them. I would have defended them with my own life.È The point of the story is both that the clash between the Britain and America was inevitable and that they would eventually be reconciled because of their deep shared faith in the same ideals of justice - ultimately, it will be observed, it is the British General Gage who steps in to resolve the dispute between soldiers and colonials in a remarkably fair and even-handed manner.We are very far from the exercise in quasi-racist British-bashing characteristic of THE PATRIOT! However, the two films have this in common that they fail to make their British villain credible. In the case of THE PATRIOT, this is due both to Robert RodatÕs script - all in black and white - and the acting, for Jason IsaacsÕ main asset, sad to say, seems to be his uncongenial face. George Sanders, on the other hand, is one of the greatest character actors specializing in villainy that Hollywood ever had. (Even his stints in BATMAN and THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. are very much worth seeing!) He had the face - and so much more : the style (ÇRemove this barbarian from the courtroom!È - Who could have said it more contemptuously?) Unfortunately, there is little that he can do to lend genuine human substance to the cardboard unidimensional character entrusted to his art. The scriptwriter seems to have meant to depict a specimen of obdurate military stupidity (British style) closely patterned on the Captain Bligh of Charles Laughton from four years earlier (MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, Oscar for Best Picture in 1935), but, evidently, he lacked the means of his ambitions. Sanders still makes the best of the uneven material and he has his moments, most notably the scene when, besieged in his fort with his troops, Swanson orders that the soldiers who caught napping be flogged, and yet treats kindly the one man whom he actually finds sleeping on duty.
